From the first paragraph of the statute:
“The welfare of the state demands that adequate provision be made for financing the return transportation of certain persons to their place of recruitment inside and outside the state upon termination of employment.”
A “State” cannot demand on another state these provisions. The voyage started in the lower 48. A company operating across state lines is subject to federal laws. Not state.
Sometimes state laws are at odds with the whole view of State versus Federal. I am not a lawyer, but this flies against everything I have heard.
A company operating across state lines is subject to federal and state laws. Just because they operate interstate commerce does not mean all state laws no longer apply.
We certainly don’t know the whole story, not even the name of the company or the trade that it is engaged in. We don’t know why the guy gave two weeks notice — maybe the vessel is unsafe? We don’t know if there is a written employment agreement or an employee handbook, or what they say.
I have worked in Alaska quite a bit and I’ve seen this situation before. I’ve help companies follow the Alaska repatriation statute, and I’ve run for cover and watched while they violated it. I’ve never heard of a tug company doing such a thing, but some of the fishing companies use to do it routinely. I have sailed without guys who got arrested in Alaska, but the company still provided a plane ticket to Seattle when the guy got out of jail.
Sometimes state law conflicts with federal law and is “preempted” by federal law. Sometimes state law applies and “supplements” federal law. In this instance, the purpose of the Alaska statute is to protect the people of Alaska from having to provide public assistance to stranded employees, not to regulate the rights of seamen. There is no apparent conflict with federal law here so the Alaska statute should also apply. Its pretty obvious how a state court judge in remote small community like Bethel would be most likely to rule on this.
I have not had a chance to look it up yet, but my recollection is that under federal law a company usually must return seaman (and other employees) to the point of hire in the US. I also suspect that the State of Washington has a statute that requires that employees hired in Washington be returned to Washington at the termination of their employment.
In any event, it is simply unacceptable for any company to strand any employee in an expensive and remote place like Bethel Alaska. No decent company would even consider doing that, much less tell any employee “tough shit” and “sue us.” That is just plain stupid.
Since it is the op’s company I will guess tugs, if my memory serves then it is Crowley.
I expect the “tough shit” and “sue us” were added by the rumor mill. Maybe the company is trying to muscle him into staying on longer…
If it is Crowley I would be surprised. But as noted I am sure the whole story isn’t out
True and true. I wouldn’t put it past some management to try to muscle him into staying by saying that, even at Crowley. But if it was Crowley and he got off regardless I expect they would do right by him, despite what they threatened.
Crowley is a good company. They would NEVER do something like this.
I can think of a couple more likely names, but I wouldn’t want to associate any company’s name with this kind of thing without knowing that they had actually done it.
[QUOTE=chgonyer;74440]Quick question for all you sea lawyers out there. A guy at my company (not me) just quit while out on the boat, the company told him tough shit we arent gonna pay for your travel off the boat to anywhere (he is gonna be in Bethel Alaska). i always thought that they had to get you to your port of hire, is that right or not?[/QUOTE]
This question is not really a Jones Act question per se but it is an area that has historically been protected. The answers in this form are remarkably informative! Why do ya’ll need lawyers anyway!.
The economic realities govern whether a lawyer will handle such a claim. The fact the sailor quit and left could complicate the success of recovery.
Cause we ‘think’ we don’t need no steenkin’ lawyers! That is until we really need lawyers!